Eric Peterson Case

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 432
  • Published : August 27, 2012
Open Document
Text Preview
Statement of Problems
With less than two weeks away from GMCT turn-on date (April 1), Erik Peterson needs toresolve all the showstopper issues facing GMCT. These issues include technical and non-technical issues that GMCT, as a team, need to act on in the remaining two weeks.Although GMCT has many bright talents, they failed to meet the original deadline (February 1)and they are now struggling to meet the revised deadline (April 1). This delay is caused bynumerous problems.

The lack of open communications between CelluComm and GMCT and within GMCT itself.a.
Peterson has failed to manage upward relationships and gain trust from CelluCommsmanagement. As a result, Peterson is not given the autonomy to make key decisionsthat would benefit GMCT. Peterson also feels that he is unable to get either support orclear direction from his line manager, Hardy. Some of the GMCT-related decisions aremade solely by CelluComms management without involving Peterson. For example:CelluCom had made a change in the power supply ratings in December and this is notcommunicated to Peterson until January and this had caused delay in the delivery.b.

Peterson has failed to establish healthy relationships amongst his direct reports. We have seen several conflicts and disputes between Curt and Trevor, Curt and Melissa,and Curt and Todd. .

The organizational structures of CelluComm and GMCT are vague and inconsistent.The organizational structures inconsistency is demonstrated even when Peterson first joined GMCT. Instead of reporting to Jenkins as he originally assumed, he was assigned toHardy. In addition, it is observed that there is no clearly defined job scope and responsibilityfor each role in the organization. For example: In CelluComm, Hardy is Diretor of Budgets &Plans and without any operating systems experience but yet Peterson is reporting to him.Hardys role and responsibility is not clear to us. .

Analysis of Problems

The lack of open communications between CelluComm and GMCT andwithin GMCT itself The following are the summary of the actions and respective results that Peterson has takenin order to tackle the existing communication issues:a.

Establishing communication with senior management (CelluComms management) What have been done?

Peterson replaced the poorly-performed existing subcontractor with the GraniteState Construction Company which he felt could provide better service.Result: This was received reluctantly by headquarters but Peterson managed toprovide adequate backup support.-

Peterson discussed Curt Andrews difficulties in handling the planning aspects of thechief engineers job with Hardy.Result: There is no response from Hardy.

Peterson needs to communicate his decision to CelluComm before implementing it if the decision is impacting CelluComm either directly or indirectly. For example: thedecision to replace the subcontractor that had done a great deal of work forCelluComm without communicating it first is not encouraged. If only Peterson hadseeked Hardys opinion first, the outcome would have been different.-

Since Hardy doesnt have prior experience with any system operating experience,Peterson could have explained in details and engaged Hardy for each of his decision.Peterson and Hardy have to agree that any decision made is benefiting both of them.-

Peterson could have initiated a weekly formal reporting or one-to-one session withHardy to ensure that they are on the same page. The session is also useful tocommunicate any problems arising in both CelluComm and GMCT during the week.-

Peterson could have escalated the problem to Jenkins. It is observed that there is nocommunication between Jenkins and Peterson since he joined GMCT.-Peterson could have initiated a good relationship with Cantor and Green instead of intimidating them during the first meeting. Positive upward relationships will benefitboth CelluComm and GMCT in the long run.b.

Establishing healthy...
tracking img